• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
May 22, 2007
717
1
I was wondering what the background is meant to be for the Byzantines. The scenario description still claims the Fourth Crusade happened (though it was barely turned back), but I saw on the forum here that there never was a Fourth Crusade.

A few specific questions, though:

-How did the Byzantines lose Corfu to Ragusa of all places?
-How did Albania become independent?
-Has the Empire not attempted to expand in the two centuries since it shrank to its current borders in 1204?
 
I was wondering what the background is meant to be for the Byzantines. The scenario description still claims the Fourth Crusade happened (though it was barely turned back), but I saw on the forum here that there never was a Fourth Crusade.

A few specific questions, though:

-How did the Byzantines lose Corfu to Ragusa of all places?
-How did Albania become independent?
-Has the Empire not attempted to expand in the two centuries since it shrank to its current borders in 1204?

1) Eclipsed by the foundation of Nicopolis, Kerkyra for a long time passed out of notice. With the rise of the Norman kingdom in Sicily and the Italian naval powers, it again became a frequent object of attack. In 1081-1085 it was held by Robert Guiscard, in 1147-1154 by Roger II of Sicily. During the break-up of the Later Byzantine Empire it was occupied by Genoese privateers (1197-1207) who in turn were expelled by the Venetians. In 1214-1259 it passed to the Greek despots of Epirus, and in 1267 became a possession of the Neapolitan house of Anjou. Under the latter's weak rule the island suffered considerably from the inroads of various adventurers, including a short lived Roma Fiefdom; hence in 1386 it placed itself under the protection of Venice, which in 1401 acquired formal sovereignty over it.

2) Albania would remain under Byzantine rule until the fourteenth century AD when the Ottoman Turks began to make incursions into the Empire. The Ottomans captured Constantinople in 1453 and by 1460 most former Byzantine territories were in the hands of the Turks

3) Probably because of all the Slavs and different Illyrian tribes conmibed with the constant attacks from moslems.
 
1) Eclipsed by the foundation of Nicopolis, Kerkyra for a long time passed out of notice. With the rise of the Norman kingdom in Sicily and the Italian naval powers, it again became a frequent object of attack. In 1081-1085 it was held by Robert Guiscard, in 1147-1154 by Roger II of Sicily. During the break-up of the Later Byzantine Empire it was occupied by Genoese privateers (1197-1207) who in turn were expelled by the Venetians. In 1214-1259 it passed to the Greek despots of Epirus, and in 1267 became a possession of the Neapolitan house of Anjou. Under the latter's weak rule the island suffered considerably from the inroads of various adventurers, including a short lived Roma Fiefdom; hence in 1386 it placed itself under the protection of Venice, which in 1401 acquired formal sovereignty over it.

2) Albania would remain under Byzantine rule until the fourteenth century AD when the Ottoman Turks began to make incursions into the Empire. The Ottomans captured Constantinople in 1453 and by 1460 most former Byzantine territories were in the hands of the Turks

Yes, I know how those territories were lost in our history, but in Interregnum there was no breakup of the Byzantine Empire and the Ottoman Turks never formed.
 
Use your imagination.
 
Use your imagination.

That's rather unhelpful. You make a mistake by misunderstanding his question and then tell him this?

@JohnnyReb - As far as I know, the Fourth Crusade is not supposed to have happened in Interregnum but there might be some references left from when the mod was Aberration? The Ragusa description has this line about Corfu:

"Ragusa remained a peaceful state until the rise of the Seljuks, when Ragusa hired mercenaries to re-capture Corfu, which it has retained."
 
Sorry >< I forgot that this was the Interregnum & Aberration thread, and when I understood that, well, there I should have stopped.
 
The Fourth Crusade never happened because Jerusalem survived as a consequence of the Second and Third crusades. Byzantium however did have a civil war, replacing the Paleologi (the OTL rulers) with the Kommenoi, which is why Krete is independent, but Trebizond isn't. I believe Albania became independent in the process, and this was also when Ragusa snagged Corfu.
As for lack of expansion, in this timeline Hungary is much stronger in the West and the Turkish-backed Cossacks remain a threat in the North. The Turkish states in Anatolia also only recently broke up into many warlord-ships, opening expansion that way.
Ask Matty for a more concrete answer though.
 
The Fourth Crusade never happened because Jerusalem survived as a consequence of the Second and Third crusades. Byzantium however did have a civil war, replacing the Paleologi (the OTL rulers) with the Kommenoi, which is why Krete is independent, but Trebizond isn't. I believe Albania became independent in the process, and this was also when Ragusa snagged Corfu.
As for lack of expansion, in this timeline Hungary is much stronger in the West and the Turkish-backed Cossacks remain a threat in the North. The Turkish states in Anatolia also only recently broke up into many warlord-ships, opening expansion that way.
Ask Matty for a more concrete answer though.

what??
the fourth crusade never went to the levant ( Jerusalem) , it was about the sack and capture of Constantinople by the franks and the Venetians, with the result that a Frankish king became emperor of Byzantium from 1204 to 1260.
IIRC the Frankish lord was Boniface
 
You're absolutely correct Toio, but you are thinking like me.
You are thinking in accurate historical terms, but this is a-historical, Interregum and Aberration that is.
 
what??
the fourth crusade never went to the levant ( Jerusalem) , it was about the sack and capture of Constantinople by the franks and the Venetians, with the result that a Frankish king became emperor of Byzantium from 1204 to 1260.
IIRC the Frankish lord was Boniface

Toio, look at the path below the Paradox Interactive banner. This is the Interregnum & Abberation forum.
 
Actually, I've recently been thinking about Byzantium's background. I'm not brilliant at history, but I thought the splitting of the church was to do with the sacking of Constantinople, am I mistaken? If not, why are there many Orthodox provinces (or Catholic for that matter, either or)?
 
Actually, I've recently been thinking about Byzantium's background. I'm not brilliant at history, but I thought the splitting of the church was to do with the sacking of Constantinople, am I mistaken? If not, why are there many Orthodox provinces (or Catholic for that matter, either or)?

which sacking, 4th crusade in 1204 or 1453 sacking?

In the 1204 sacking the catholic church ( Latin empire) reigned until 1260.

IIRC the orthodox- catholic split was earlier then 1204
 
Actually, I've recently been thinking about Byzantium's background. I'm not brilliant at history, but I thought the splitting of the church was to do with the sacking of Constantinople, am I mistaken? If not, why are there many Orthodox provinces (or Catholic for that matter, either or)?

The splitting of the Church occurred in 1054, a hundred and fifty years before the sacking of Constantinople.

The Fourth Crusade drove the eastern and western churches farther apart, but I doubt they'd have reunited even without it. Papal primacy is just too central of a difference to be glossed over.
 
The splitting of the Church occurred in 1054, a hundred and fifty years before the sacking of Constantinople.

The Fourth Crusade drove the eastern and western churches farther apart, but I doubt they'd have reunited even without it. Papal primacy is just too central of a difference to be glossed over.

Indeed. The orthodox were 100% sure that their faith was correct, and that the christians was more or less heretics, and vice versa.
However, the Fourth Crusade was never meant to plunder Constantinople, it just happened.
 
The Orthodox are Christians too. ;)

Haha yes of course :) Too bad they didn't realize ít. Just like todays shiite and sunni moslems :( It's a shame to see humans slaughtering each other due to religion...
 
Indeed. The orthodox were 100% sure that their faith was correct, and that the christians was more or less heretics, and vice versa.
However, the Fourth Crusade was never meant to plunder Constantinople, it just happened.

haha, it did not just happen, the franks failed to pay ( as they had no money) the contract they had with Venice to build the ships to transport to the levant, there was only 3 choices for the franks who where stuck on the Lido.

1. They could resist and get starved out and butched
2. they could surrender and be sold as slaves to recoup the money for the venetians
3. arrange to attack Constantinople and repay the venetians outlay

Imagine if number 3 was not an option, history rewritten, all the french nobles gone, who would rule france later on.?
Now there is a fantasy scenario in the happening.
 
Haha yes of course :) Too bad they didn't realize ít. Just like todays shiite and sunni moslems :( It's a shame to see humans slaughtering each other due to religion...

Well the religion isn't why they are attacking each other, it only serves to highlight differences with groups but that isn't the question here nor on the rest of the forum really...